Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:10, 11 December 2016

Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NJournals and, surprisingly, the Wikipedians commenting the last time claimed otherwise even though it clearly does not. The three criteria are:

Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
- This is not true. The journal is panned by those who have evaluated it.
Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
- This is not true. The journal is basically never cited.
Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.
- This is not true. The journal is of zero historical significance.

It is also clearly serving as a coatracking promotion of the fringe theories. jps (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Note that I created this article.) How is the article acting as a WP:COATRACK? There is very little promotion, or even discussion at all, of any alternative medicine/paranormal/other pseudoscientific topics in this article. Also, jps would do well to look more closely at the NJOURNALS criteria, specifically the part that says: "For the purpose of C1 [criterion 1], having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports always qualifies." This journal does have such an impact factor: 1.012. [1] Everymorning (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a coatrack because it is trying to pretend that there is academic legitimacy to this pseudoscience. Elsevier is an umbrella group that gives full editorial control to its editors and only cares about subscriptions not content. Thus, using Elsevier as a shield to claim, "Look, we have legitimacy" is what is going on here. It's fringe alt med and paranomral enthusiasts pushing their ideas into Wikipedia. Very bad. jps (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP means that the journal is a coatrack, not that the Wikipedia article is. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's coverage of this obscure, non-notable journal is a coatrack for the idea that the ideas contained in this journal are mainstream. jps (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. However the article creator seems a reasonable character who in fact merely bought into the argument that if it's in the medical databases then it must be allowed here. But it is clear that GNG trumps that anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to meet WP:JOURNALCRIT or be otherwise notable. Fringe coatrackery compounds the problem. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This was kept at AFD just 1 month ago and nothing has changed. A trout for the nom. --Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy TROUT for you because the AfD 1 month ago included very poor arguments in favor of keeping this non-notable piece of trash. jps (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable per the OP. I found a few citations in other sources, but one could not by any stretch call them reliable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would the delete !voters please care to explain why this journal having an impact factor assigned by JCR, which WP:JOURNALCRIT explicitly says satisfies the first criterion of the notability guideline for journals, somehow does not confer notability in this case? Everymorning (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that "~~high~~ significant impact factor" gives a better description of the criterion's intent and I do not see that reflected in JCR's pathetically low rating. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC) [updated 18:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)]][reply]

An impact factor does not show the journal is "considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area". Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that is not enough to satisfy the first criterion. It simply isn't. Having a low impact factor absolutely does not confer notability on a journal. Actually, having a high impact factor doesn't necessarily do so either (and, anyway, knowing where to draw the line between low and high is arbitrary). jps (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are making up straw-man versions of C1 and then boasting that the journal doesn't meet these fake versions of the criteria. Before jps recently decided to change the criteria so they would suit his personal vendetta against this journal, the criteria stated that having a JCR IF, high or not, qualifies as a pass of C1. [2] Everymorning (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Everymorning. Taking this to AfD one month after it was closed a unanimous "keep", while simultaneously modifying NJournals to suit the arguments made here is more than a little bit disruptive. --Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to keep Wikipedia clear of bullshit like this. There seems to have been pushes trying to skew Wikipedia towards accepting pseudoscientific claptrap as legitimate research. I am unapologetic about pushing these problems out of here. jps (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the AfD on this article one month ago. Per WP:DPAFD "users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again". No specific amount of time is stated, but I'm pretty sure one month is not reasonable. Unless new information has since come to light that should have changed the previous discussion, let's avoid relitigating previous consensus so soon. Ajpolino (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- New information has come to light. The people who argued for keep did so for very problematic reasons. Such as the existence of an impact factor or the fact that the journal was indexed. Did you read the discussion above? jps (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not new information but was clearly stated in the previous AfD. That you don't like that is irrelevant. --Randykitty (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can those bashing us over the head with WP:NJOURNALS and its section WP:JOURNALCRIT please note that it is an opinion essay - not even a guideline, never mind actual policy. It is worthless in the face of WP:GNG. And here, the existence of a few database entries and an impact factor does not provide RS for a significant level of citation and/or wider discussion. Given the lack of wider discussion and the pathetic level of citation, affirmed by the equally pathetic impact factor, no way can these toys establish notability of this journal. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just indicative of the larger problem here at Wikipedia where someone writes an essay, the teeming minions treat it as gospel, then they establish some "consensus" which is totally at odds with the way the world actually works. They then proceed to complain about "process" and "consensus" and "too soon" issues. C'mon, people. We're here to curate an encyclopedia, not to invent a WP:BURO. I hope the realpolitickers (i.e., sycophants) commenting here to the tune of "keep -- consensus" know that I am watching and will be interested in opposing their attempts to climb the power ladder at this website. jps (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is that supposed to mean? Don't vote "keep" or I'm coming after you??? --Randykitty (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is true that WP:NJOURNALS is not a guideline or policy, but rather an essay. However, just because you personally don't like a journal because you think it or its contents is "bullshit", as jps stated above, certainly is not a policy- or guideline-based reason for deleting a page either. This remains true whether or not you can get a whole bunch of your sycophants to post delete votes in the same discussion, because Wikipedia is not a democracy, where the most votes determines the outcome of a discussion. Insulting a journal with your own unsupported claims that it consists of pseudoscience, bullshit, etc. is the least policy-based reason to delete a page. Everymorning (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem attack is also the least policy-based reason to keep a page that your victim thinks should go. Worse, it actively flouts policy, in the form of assuming good faith. Please strike out the word "sycophants" in your post and on the part of those who disagree with you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Elsevier periodicals (with a mention there in the list). Since WP:NJOURNAL is but an essay, the next best notability rules come from WP:GNG. I cannot find anything but passing mentions (as in "According to a study published in Explore, bla bla bla...") in my GNews and GBooks searches. Ergo, not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but does exist, so it can be mentioned in a higher-level article. --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try clicking the link to GScholar above. --Randykitty (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on it and again found nothing but passing mentions in reference lists. No significant coverage to support more information than a one-lined permastub. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The journal has an impact factor and is indexed in Scopus, thus meets notability criteria of WP:NJOURNALS, our de facto guideline at AfD. In short, nothing has changed since the last nomination. --Mark viking (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, as has already been pointed out, WP:NJOURNALS is not a guideline, it is an essay and as such stands only as an opinion piece which we are free to disagree with. This, along with the very low impact rating, are both new information to the discussion and therefore this AfD is not merely a repeat of the same old same old. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and WP:GNG is only a guideline and not policy. We can go on like this all day long. People refer to essays all the time, it's a kind of shorthand so that they don't have to repeat the same arguments over and over again (especially to people that have decided they don't want to hear them whatever be the case). --Randykitty (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, as has been pointed out many times at other journal AfDs, WP:NJOURNALS has been used as a de facto guideline for at least the four years I have been an editor. While WP policy has ossified to the point that it is difficult to get people to agree to creating new guidelines, in this case, precedent has been established. --Mark viking (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mark viking. St Anselm (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no reliable sources to confer notability. The impact factor is indeed low. Include in a list of Elsevier publications by all means, but I see nothing to indicate that a useful article can emerge from the present dismal stub. Mcewan (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability due to not having much discussion from other independent sources of any depth. Sagecandor (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think merely having an impact factor indexed by SCOPUS meets the "is frequently cited" of criterion 2 at the essay WP:NJOURNALS. Anyway, it seems likely that the correct guideline is not one about academic journals, but one about peddling in pseudoscience, WP:NFRINGE, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is at least one independent secondary source that mentions this journal in passing referred to in the article as known for publishing pseudoscience. (It gives the example of a study of whether it is possible to embed "intent" into chocolate.) If there are more such secondary sources, I think this article could be kept under NFRINGE. Otherwise, I do not think it meets that guideline, and therefore should be deleted. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the journal has an impact factor, making it a clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 *'''Delete''', as appears to fail [[Wikipedia:Notability]] due to not having much discussion from other independent sources of any depth. [[User:Sagecandor|Sagecandor]] ([[User talk:Sagecandor|talk]]) 11:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 *'''Comment'''.  I don't think merely having an impact factor indexed by SCOPUS meets the "is frequently cited" of criterion 2 at the essay [[WP:NJOURNALS]].  Anyway, it seems likely that the correct guideline is not one about academic journals, but one about peddling in pseudoscience, [[WP:NFRINGE]], which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  There is at least one independent secondary source that mentions this journal in passing referred to in the article as known for publishing pseudoscience.  (It gives the example of a study of whether it is possible to embed "intent" into chocolate.)  If there are more such secondary sources, I think this article could be kept under NFRINGE.  Otherwise, I do not think it meets that guideline, and therefore should be deleted.  [[User:Sławomir Biały|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sławomir Biały</span>]] ([[User talk:Sławomir Biały|talk]]) 13:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''', the journal has an impact factor, making it a clear pass of [[WP:NJOURNALS]]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 14:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)